*ḫulan(i)-
‘wool’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2849
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
*ḫulan(i)-
‘wool’1.1.1Transmission
The two attestations of the lexeme are found in a song incipit from the Ištanuwa festival and in an incantation that resembles those from the Kuwattalla tradition.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | síg-la-ni-iš | KUB 25.39 iv 6 | (CTH 773, NS) |
| abl./instr. | ⸢síg⸣-ti | KBo 29.36, 5’ | (CTH 763, MS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The logographic spelling with síg ‘wool’ reveals the meaning of the lexeme unambiguously. With respect to its reading, Laroche (DLL:124) referred to Hitt. *ḫulana-, itself reconstructed from the spelling variants of the river name ÍDḫulana-/ÍDsíg-na- (for which see HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:695f.). Hence, he convincingly assumes a reading *ḫulaniš for the Luwian match (accepted in HW:329, HEG A-K:278, Starke 1990a:63, CLL:71, HED H:369, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:695f., EDHIL:358, Pinault 2016a:242 as well as here).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The nom. sg. in -iš implies an i-mutated stem (still categorized as an i-stem in the pre-1990 contributions cited under Meaning). For the analysis of the internal structure, see under Reconstruction.
[E.R.]
1.2 Hittite
*ḫūlana-
‘wool’1.2.1Literature / Comments
HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:695
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The Hittite and Luwian word for ‘wool’ should be reconstructed as a stem in *-no- (required by the i-mutation in Luwian), instead of *-neh2- like in the other Indo-European languages (but cf. Starke 1990a:63, Pinault 2016a:246f.). Without consideration of Indo-European *u̯l̥h1neh2- (Pinault 2016a:241), one would be forced to reconstruct the Proto-Anatolian noun as *Hulóno- from a root *Hu̯el-. However, Pinault 2016a:251f. reconstructs an attractive compound made of the root of the noun for ‘sheep’ *h2óu̯-i- (adding a PIE l-stemNow considered outdated, see Rieken 2008a.) and the noun for ‘year’ *h1éno- both in the zero-grade, i.e. *h2u̯l̥-h1nó-, although the syllabication of the middle sequence vis-à-vis the attested vowel in ḫūl-a-na- in Hittite and Luwian still remains a problem (see Melchert 1994a:65f., EDHIL:358).
In HED H:363, 369, this noun is considered related to Hitt. ḫuliya- ‘wool’, ḫulāli- n. ‘distaff’ (denom. ḫūlāliye/a-(mi) ‘to wind around’, ḫulḫuliye/a-(mi) ‘to entwine, embrace’ and as belonging to the Indo-European root *u̯el(-u̯)- ‘to turn, roll’ and ‘to wrap’ (LIV²:674 and 675).The river name ÍDḪulaya- (Oettinger 1986a:35 n. 122, HED H:361) is also considered to belong here, although the connection must be considered highly tentative. A Luwian derivative in -ai(ya)- derived from a base *ḫula- is possible, but hardly provable. In this dictionary, we also add another potential cognate, i.e. CLuw. ḫūwalm(i)- ‘wool strands (?)’ (< *h2u̯él-mo-). All this data would require the reconstruction of a root-initial laryngeal *Hu̯el- (cf. Pinault 2016a.250), which would have been lost in certain formations with an o-grade of the root due to Saussure’s Law, thus creating two root variants *Hu̯el- and *u̯el(-u̯)-; cf. CLuw. *walip- ‘to wrap, envelope’. Whereas this is entirely fine within an Anatolian context, it does not settle the problem that the Indo-European words for ‘wool’, preferably reconstructed as *u̯l̥h1neh2- (see Pinault 2016a:241), need a root-final laryngeal. Thus, more research is needed.
The loanword hypothesis from Hurrian is generally considered untenable, see HED H:369, Pinault 2016a:243. Pinault (ibid.) points out the possibility that the direction of borrowing is the other way around.
[D.S.]